Punctuating Interruption; Interrupting Punctuation

An Investigation of the Interruption at Iliad 1.292

By examining the punctuation of Venetus A and drawing comparisons to texts from the Serbo- Croatian oral tradition, I shall show that the interruption at Iliad Book 1 line 292 1 is more forceful than it appears at first, but ultimately still constrained by the Homeric style and the unique composition of the scene in which it occurs. Along the way I shall question the modern editorial stance on punctuation, point out an apparently unnoticed feature of Venetus A’s punctuation and consider the possible restrictions of the Greek language and of the poem’s oral features upon juxtaposed dialogue. I shall then conclude with the remark that 292 is the pinnacle of Book 1.

εἰ δέ µιν αἰχµητὴν ἔθεσαν θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες τοὔνεκά οἱ προθέουσιν ὀνείδεα µυθήσασθαι; Τὸν δ' ἄρ' ὑποβλήδην ἠµείβετο δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς· 292 ἦ γάρ κεν δειλός τε καὶ οὐτιδανὸς καλεοίµην εἰ δὴ σοὶ πᾶν ἔργον ὑπείξοµαι ὅττί κεν εἴπῃς·2

With these verses we are told that Achilles interrupts Agamemnon 3. However, this interruption seems lacking, as Pulleyn says: “but for this comment by the poet, we might not have suspected that Achilles’ words were an interruption” 4. I will argue that this is not the case; that the interruption is perceptible without the poet’s narration and that this narration, although incidentally identifying the interruption, primarily serves another purpose.

Our search for other interruptive elements must start with Agamemnon’s utterance immediately before the interruption. Line 291 in particular has proved troublesome, as we can see from the range of translations on offer:

have they put insults on his lips as well? (Fitzgerald 5)

1 Line numbers, unless otherwise specified, refer to Book one of the Iliad . 2 From the text of Allen (1931). 3 For a defence of ὑποβλήδην meaning ‘interruptingly’ cf. Pulleyn (2000) on 293 (which, I note in passing, is mislabelled – it should be 292). 4 Pulleyn (2000) on 293; see also Kirk (1985) on 292. 5 Fitzgerald (1974) p.9.

1/16

yet they have not given him the right to speak abusively. (Lattimore 6) is it for that reason that his revilings run forth for him to utter them? (Pulleyn 7) is it on that account that his revilings rush forward for utterance ? (Murray/Wyatt 8)

The commentators too find considerable difficulty with the line 9. Numerous problems are raised: What is the subject (θεοὶ or ὀνείδεα)? What is the verb (προθεω or προτιθημι)? Should it be understood as subjunctive? How are we to take μυθήσασθαι (purpose or epexegetic)? What about οἱ (dative of possession or reference)? Almost every grammatical aspect of the line is troubling. And though neither Kirk nor Pulleyn thinks the line corrupt, none of the options they offer are very persuasive and we may well be tempted to agree with Leaf’s conclusion: “I see no choice but to regard the passage as hopelessly corrupt” 10 .

However, declaring a line corrupt should be a last resort. Here I think there is another explanation. If Achilles really did interrupt Agamemnon, as we know, courtesy of the narrator, he did, then we would not expect Agamemnon’s utterance to be complete. Perhaps, if he had continued, grammatical coherence would have developed and so the lack of such coherence suggests an interruption.

In addition to the troublesome grammar, there is another aspect of line 291 that suggests an interruption.

In the comparison of line 291 above, Lattimore, unlike the other translators, did not consider Agamemnon’s utterance a question. This raises the role of the punctuation in providing a problematic (as we have seen above) impression of grammatical completeness that may otherwise be lacking. If Agamemnon’s utterance is genuinely interrupted, we would not expect the text to be punctuated as it currently stands 11 .

Yet what grounds have we for disputing the punctuation? The major modern editions all punctuate 291 as a question 12 . Usually the place to start in a matter of textual variance is the critical apparatus. However, none of these editions indicate any alternative reading. Yet we would not expect them to do so; the punctuation of the manuscripts we possess originates in the editorial decisions of 9 th -10 th

6 Lattimore (1951) p.209. 7 Pulleyn (2000) p.89. 8 Murrey rev. Wyatt (1999) p.35. 9 Kirk (1985) and Pulleyn (2000) on 291. 10 Leaf (1990) on 291 quoted by Kirk (1985) p.82 11 In English we would expect, say, a dash (cf. Lennard (2005) p. 136); as for Greek, we shall see later. 12 Namely Allen and Munro, West, and van Thiel.

2/16 century Byzantine scribes 13 and, as they were working at over 1500 years’ distance from the time of Homer 14 , it is disregarded by modern editors and not reported in the critical apparatus 15 .

While 1500 years is a long time, it is 1000 years closer to Homer than today and although our modern preferences for punctuation may differ markedly from those of the Byzantine scribes, it seems reasonable that, as Rijksbaron recommends 16 , editors should not be over hasty in setting aside manuscript punctuation. Surely, like other textual features, punctuation ought to be subject to critical scrutiny, to be determined by “considerations of sense or usage or palaeography” 17 and with consideration of the manuscript tradition 18 .

Let us start with a consideration of our line, 291, as it appears in Venetus A (see image 1 in Appendix A: Manuscript Images).

However, this doesn’t seem to help our argument. The line is quite clearly punctuated with a semicolon indicating a question. If our modern editions as well as this ancient manuscript have all independently reached the conclusion that the remark is a question, surely their position is unassailable? But consider the following from Book 1 19 :

1. Ten places where our text is punctuated as a question, but the manuscript is not:

8; 123; 134; 151; 202; 362; 365; 414; 540; 552 20

2. One place where the manuscript is punctuated as a question, but our text is not:

157 21

3. Two places where both our text and the manuscript punctuate as a question:

203; 291 22

13 Cf. Rijksbaron (2007) pp.68-9 n.150. 14 th Edwards for example offers the 8 century B.C. as a date for Homer (2005) p.310. 15 Cf. West (1973) pp.53-4; Rijksbaron (2007) pp.68-9. 16 Rijksbaron (2007) pp.68-9 and passim. 17 Housman (1905) p.xiii, speaking purely of textual readings, not punctuation (which, I believe, he only mentions twice in his introduction, at xix and xxxvi). 18 Cf. Rijksbaron’s comments concerning the utility of Byzantine punctuation and his exemplary consideration of MS punctuation in his edition of Plato’s Ion (2007) p.68 and passim. 19 This analysis is based on my comparison of the punctuation of the entirety of Book 1 of Murray’s 1999 Loeb edition of the Iliad with Book 1 as it appears in the images of the Venetus A manuscript available on the Homer Multitext Project (http://www.homermultitext.org/). 20 Images 2.1-10 in Appendix A. 21 Image 3 in Appendix A. 22 Images 4.1-2 in Appendix A.

3/16

Initially it seems as if questions are haphazardly punctuated, but there is more to it than this. After a consideration of 34 miniscule manuscripts Charles Brewster Randolph formulated the following general principle: “the sign of interrogation does not follow questions introduced by an interrogative pronoun or adverb” 23 . This matches our data very neatly: of the twelve places in Book 1 where our text punctuates as a question 24 , ten are introduced by an interrogative marker 25 and in nine of these cases the manuscript fails to punctuate as a question 26 .

However, Randolph noticed something odd in five of his manuscripts: “[these five] do not contain the semicolon with interrogative value,” and it just so happens that one of them is our manuscript – Venetus A 27 .

At first this is puzzling. What can it possibly mean? We have three examples of just such a use 28 :

οὔρεά τε σκιόεντα θάλασσά τε ἠχήεσσα ; 157

ἦ ἵνα ὕβριν ἴδῃ Ἀγαµέµνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο; 203

τοὔνεκά οἱ προθέουσιν ὀνείδεα µυθήσασθαι; 291

The answer lies in the assumption that the semicolon indicates a question. To quote the opening of Randolph’s article: “The punctuation in Greek minuscule manuscripts strikes one as varium et mutabile semper ”29 – punctuation marks differ widely between and even within manuscripts, there was no standardised system 30 . In this manuscript the semicolon does not indicate a question 31 . It is just as Randolph goes on to say: “[in Venetus A] no effort is made to distinguish questions from statements” 32 .

But if it does not indicate a question, what does it indicate? Here a comment of Rijksbaron’s proves particularly interesting: “In the Aldina, as well as the more recent MSS, like S, F, Par. 1811 and Vat.

23 Randolph (1910) p.310; also cf. Rijksbaron (2007) p.246 n.358, “The variation in punctuation after the two question types—specifying, x- or word-questions on the one hand and yes/no -questions on the other—is no coincidence, for the two types were strictly distinguished in antiquity, and called πύσματα (or πεύσεις) and ἐρωτήματα (or ἐρωτήσεις), respectively”. 24 i.e. all of the places under points 1 and 2 above. 25 8 (τίς); 123 (πῶς); 151 (πῶς); 202 (τίπτ᾿); 203 (ἦ); 362 (τί); 365 (τί); 414 (τί); 540 (τίς); 552 (ποῖον) 26 203 is the exception – it has an interrogative marker (ἦ), but is nevertheless punctuated as a question – however, see the discussion below. 27 Randolph (1910) p.315. 28 Text punctuated as in the manuscript, accented according to Murray/Wyatt (1999). 29 Randolph (1910) p.309. 30 Ibid. 31 For otherwise, how do we explain 157 (under point 2 above) and 203 (mentioned at note 26)? 32 Randolph (1910) p.315.

4/16

1030, the διαστολή (comma) has by and large replaced the ὑποστιγμή [low dot] 33 as a means to indicate an ‘incomplete thought’” 34 . While this is not directly pertinent to Venetus A (the “more recent MSS” Rijksbaron mentions date from the 13 th -14 th centuries, well after our 10 th century Venetus A 35 ) it highlights the fact that, at least on occasion, the Greeks punctuated ‘incomplete thought’ and that this punctuation, like all other forms of ancient punctuation, was subject to change.

So what does our semicolon indicate? I suggest that in Venetus A it serves much the same purpose as Rijksbaron’s διαστολή: to indicate ‘incomplete thought’ – to indicate interruption.

Let us consider our examples of this punctuation once more 36 .

Athena has just appeared to Achilles; she grabs him, he turns and speaks:

τίπτ ' αὖτ' αἰγιόχοιο ∆ιὸς τέκος εἰλήλουθας·37 ἦ ἵνα ὕβριν ἴδῃ Ἀγαµέµνονος Ἀτρεΐδαο; 203 ἀλλ ' ἔκ τοι ἐρέω , τὸ δὲ καὶ τελέεσθαι ὀΐω· ᾗς ὑπεροπλίῃσι τάχ ' ἄν ποτε θυµὸν ὀλέσσῃ·

We know even just from Randolph’s general principle (as distinct from his specific observation concerning Venetus A) that the semicolon cannot serve to mark 203 as a question. That much is already clear from the interrogative use of ἦ. While this particle has both affirmative and interrogative uses 38 , here it is clearly interrogative, introducing a self-corrective question 39 . So the semicolon must indicate something else 40 . But can it indicate an interruption? 203 gives us no help. Perhaps Achilles meant to continue, perhaps he did not; there is no hint in the line itself. But in 204 we see ἀλλ'; neither Pulleyn nor Kirk comments on this word but it clearly has the force of the fourth ‘special use’ of ἀλλά as set out by Denniston (labelled ‘in commands and exhortations’) 41 – it expresses “a break-off in thought […] a transition from arguments for action to a statement of the

33 Rijksbaron (2007) p.70. 34 Rijksbaron (2007) p.245 n.358. 35 For the dates of Rijksbaron’s MSS cf. Rijksbaron (2007) p.28ff.; for the date of Venetus A cf. West (2001) p.139. 36 Text punctuated as in the manuscript, accented according to Murray/Wyatt (1999). 37 Observe that in the manuscript 202 is not punctuated as a question, just as we would expect from Randolph’s principle. 38 Denniston (1954) p.279; Monro (1891) p. 308; and for interrogative uses Rijksbaron (2007) pp.103-6. 39 Cf. Rijksbaron (2007) p.104 on an instance of a self-corrective question in Plato’s Ion “In this use a speaker, having asked a first question, does not wait for an answer, but immediately corrects himself by asking a second question […] Typically, the first question is a wh -question […] and the second one a yes-no question.” 40 And, of course, Randolph’s specific observation leaves us in no doubt. 41 Denniston (1954) pp.13-4.

5/16 action required” 42 – and fits our situation perfectly – Achilles’ next words are precisely such a statement of action required 43 . The manuscript punctuation emphasises the interruptive nature of 203; it intensifies Achilles’ “indignant little speech” 44 from peevishness to restrained rage.

Now to our second example 45 .

Agamemnon has just threatened to seize Achilles’ γέρας, Achilles opens his response with insults 46 , questions Agamemnon’s authority 47 and then elaborates as to why this is not his fight 48 :

ἐπεὶ ἦ µάλα πολλὰ µεταξὺ οὔρεά τε σκιόεντα θάλασσά τε ἠχήεσσα ; 157 ἀλλὰ σοὶ ὦ µέγ ' ἀναιδὲς ἅµ' ἑσπόµεθ ' ὄφρα σὺ χαίρῃς·49

The shift in tone that takes place at 158 has been noted by commentators: “The style becomes breathless, with a sporadic interjection of pure abuse” 50 , “a very strong contrast […] he comes back to reality with a jolt” 51 . In addition we also have, as in 203 above, our special use of ἀλλά. This fits perfectly with the semicolon indicating an interruption.

Now let us consider the information before us:

157 cannot be a question (by sense) but can be an interruption.

203 is a question (by the interrogative marker) and so (by both of Randolph’s observations) the semicolon cannot indicate a question, it can also be an interruption.

292 must be an interruption (by the narrator’s comment), and may also be a question.

42 Denniston (1954) p.14. 43 204-5. 44 Kirk (1985) on 202-5. 45 Text punctuated as in the manuscript, accented according to Murray (1999). 46 149. 47 150-1. 48 152-7. 49 Here I should note a slight peculiarity in the manuscript – at the end of 157 we actually see a comma, then a semicolon, not just a semicolon (see Apendix A, image 5) – this can be attributed to scribal infelicities, it seems that the ‘comma’ matches the ink of the line of gloss below and is actually a wayward breathing, not punctuation of 157 (note the lack of a breathing immediately over the επί in the gloss). If this ‘comma’ were punctuation of 157, then it would be the only instance in Book 1 of the scribe punctuating with a comma at the end of a line. 50 Kirk (1985) on 158-60. 51 Pulleyn (2000) on 158 ἀλλά.

6/16

So if we admit that the semicolon has a consistent meaning in all three cases, then the meaning must be that of indicating an interruption. Therefore Agamemnon’s utterance is genuinely interrupted and is, in Venetus A, punctuated as being so 52 .

We may ask how Venetus A came to be punctuated this way, and why the modern editions so consistently punctuate otherwise. For the latter I suspect a similar reason to that which Rijksbaron found through his examination of the punctuation of Plato’s Ion – that it all goes back to an influential early edition of the text (in the Ion ’s case, Stephanus’ edition of 1578) which influenced subsequent editors 53 . For the former I suspect that the punctuation of Venetus A was made by a scribe familiar with oral performances of the Iliad (or that he reproduces the punctuation of one who was), and his punctuation reflects features of such performances, such as the intonational force given to an interruption. As West says: “In the case of the Homeric poems, however, such decisions [those of punctuation etc.] will have been made by men familiar with the sound of the verse as preserved by generations of reciters” 54 . While this too, at such a distance, is unlikely to be ‘Homeric 55 ’ it seems, by including features reflective of oral performance, to be a step closer.

This in turn raises an interesting question, bringing us back to our consideration of the interruption at 292. If we can perceive the interruption (at least in the case of a suitably punctuated text, or an oral performance) why does the narrator point it out? By doing this the effect is diminished; why not just juxtapose the speech, as in this example from Euripides’ Helen 56 ?

{Χο .} οἶσθ ' οὖν ὃ δρᾶσον· µνήµατος λιποῦσ' ἕδραν ... 57 {Ελ .} ἐς ποῖον ἕρπεις µῦθον ἢ παραίνεσιν; 316 {Χο .} ἐλθοῦσ' ἐς οἴκους , ἣ τὰ πάντ ' ἐπίσταται

However, these lines would take two people to act out; in Homeric epic we have but one performer 58 who would, to imitate such a stichomythic exchange, need to differentiate each

52 Though this itself does not prove that we can come to this knowledge without the narrator’s comment, as we have used the evidence of this comment in coming to this conclusion – however, I feel that even without the narrator’s comment this is by far the best explanation. 53 Rijksbaron (2007) p.69 and passim; unfortunately I have not had time to collate the punctuation of the major editions and so cannot test my hypothesis. 54 West (1973) p.54 n.4; see also West (1967) p.136 where it is put more vividly: „Als der Attiker den Homer ausschrieb, klangen ihm die Worte in den Ohren, wie er sie hundertmal in der Schule und von Straßenrhapsoden gehört hatte“. 55 i.e. they provide an indication of features that would have been present in Homer’s ‘original’ recitations. 56 Text from Kovacs (2002). 57 Note the triple dots indicating interruption: what, I wonder, is the origin of this? Is such punctuation present in the manuscripts? 58 Although “[i]n some Central African traditions the chief performer is supported by one or more auxiliary instrumentalists and backup vocal singers; he may act out the dramatic content mimetically” Foley ed. (2005)

7/16 interlocutor by using a different ‘voice’. This would usually be done by pitching one’s voice differently for each speaker 59 . However, Greek has a pitch accentuation system 60 ; would this perhaps have restricted the capacity of speakers to employ such techniques? However, in Plato’s Theaetetus , as Rijksbaron points out, “[a]t Tht . 143c8 we read that a slave was called upon to read the βιβλίον written by Euclides which contained the dialogue Theaetetus proper. How did the slave transpose the visible signs of speaker change in his text to audible signs” 61 ? The answer is, of course, through a different ‘voice’ for each speaker 62 . So the nature of the language poses no problem for the differentiation of speakers.

But our Homeric performer is not merely reading a script; he is singing a song to musical accompaniment 63 . Perhaps these additional factors sufficiently reduced the intonational ‘room’ so that tonal differentiation of speakers was no longer possible? Yet what are we then to make of the occurrence of the juxtaposition of speakers in a similar oral tradition 64 – that of the Serbo-Croat heroic songs 65 ? These are in metre and accompanied by music 66 , and Serbo-Croatian, much like Greek, has pitch accentuation 67 .

But on close examination of our Serbo-Croat examples we see that most include a vocative, either at the head of the line or shortly afterwards 68 , serving to indicate that a change of speaker has occurred. So the Serbo-Croat tradition may not be a counter-example after all. A further observation suggests itself – in no instance of juxtaposed dialogue in our examples are there more than two speakers in the conversation 69 , which means that a vocative merely by marking a change in speaker also identifies who is speaking. In 292, however, there are (uniquely in book 1) three speakers in the

p.201 this does not seems to have been a feature of the oral tradition associated with Homer (note the singular “bard” at p.21 of Edwards (1987)). 59 Sound, vocalised or otherwise, has three variable factors: loudness, pitch and quantity (Ladefoged (1996) p.14), all of which would or could be used to differentiate speakers, but quality is the factor that differentiates vowels (Ladefoged (1996) p.15), and so is, to some degree, fixed (a variation would result in one character sounding as if they had a regional accent), loudness too could be used, but we do not think of it as differentiating speakers – which leaves pitch. 60 Horrocks (2010) p.5. 61 Rijksbaron (2007) p.24. 62 I suppose the slave could have, like Homer, introduced each speaker, but what then do we make of the lack of accompanying speaker names in many of the manuscripts of Plato? Cf. Rijksbaron (2007) pp.23-5. 63 Cf. Martin (2005) p.11. 64 Cf. Foley (2005) pp. 202-3. 65 I found eleven instances in approximately 7,000 lines included in Pennington & Levi (1984) – see Appendix B: Instances of Juxtaposition in Serbo-Croat Heroic Song. 66 As you can hear for yourself on CD accompanying Lord (2000). 67 Kordić (1997) p.8. 68 Or at least they do as they appear in Pennington & Levi (1984). 69 With the exception of the example on p.92 in which the speakers are identified immediately after they speak, and, in any case, both say the same thing. So the slight initial ambiguity is not going to prove problematic.

8/16 exchange – for, when Achilles interrupts, Agamemnon was speaking to Nestor. It may be that the role of Achilles’ somewhat unsatisfying introductory line serves not to introduce him, but to identify him. Even if Homer could dispense with the introductory line, relying on tone – particularly the specific interruptive force suggested by the semicolon punctuation – there would still be an ambiguity, and so the introduction must be included, the interruption must remain unsatisfactory.

Starting from Pulleyn’s comment I have considered the grammar of Agamemnon’s lines, found it troublesome, yet set aside textual corruption and suggested that they are given a false sense of closure by the punctuation in modern editions. I then considered their stance on punctuation and questioned it before embarking on a detailed examination of the use of the semicolon in Venetus A, from which we concluded that it indicates an interruption. Next I considered the reason behind this punctuation and the differing punctuation of the modern editions, and why we might have reason to follow the manuscript punctuation. Then, returning to 292, I examined the possible reasons behind the comparatively unsatisfying nature of this line, considering the Greek language and, through comparison with the Serbo-Croatian heroic songs, the oral background of the poem – concluding after an examination of instances of juxtaposed dialogue in our Serbo-Croatian texts that this is a result of the Homeric style and the unique (three-character) set-up of the scene in which it occurs.

So to conclude – the interruption at 292, although more forceful than it seems at first, is ultimately unsatisfying. However, our philological analysis reveals a more exciting conclusion 70 – one that, while linguistically unsatisfying, is literarily brilliant.

All three interruptions are by Achilles, the first two of himself, the last of Agamemnon – they demonstrate his initial internal struggle to control himself and its eventual external expression of rage against Agamemnon – freezing rage, too hot for the insults 71 or the violent gestures 72 that characterised Achilles’ earlier anger – 292 is the moment Achilles finally snaps. Before our first interruption at 157, Achilles is described as ὑπόδρα ἱδών73 , then between 157 and 203 as being beset by ἄχος 74 , between 203 and 292 as possessing μένος 75 , ἔρις 76 and χόλος 77 and only after 291 78 is he finally described as having μῆνις 79 . Our interruptions punctuate Achilles’ anger – charting a

70 You don’t find punctuation fascinating? How strange. 71 Such as those at 149 and 225. 72 Such as throwing the σκῆπτρον γαίῃ at 245. 73 148. 74 188. 75 207. 76 210. 77 224. 78 Excluding, of course, the first line. 79 422, 488.

9/16 crescendo rising into rage, into wrath, and at the peak of 292, the peak of book 1, into μῆνιν, fulfilling the agenda prefigured in the first word of the first line of the Iliad : μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος.

10/16

References

Allen, T.W. ed. (1931), Homeri Ilias vols. 2–3, Oxford

Denniston, J. D. (1954), The Greek Particles 2nd ed., Oxford

Edwards, M. W. (1987), Homer: Poet of the Iliad , Baltimore

- ‘Homer’s Iliad’ in J. M. Foley ed. (2005), A Companion to Ancient Epic , 203-14, Oxford

Fitzgerald, R. trans. (1974, 2008), The Iliad , Oxford

Foley, J. M., ‘Analogues: Modern Oral Epics’ in J. M. Foley ed. (2005), A Companion to Ancient Epic ,

196-212, Oxford

Horrocks, G. (2010), Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers 2nd ed., Oxford

Housman, A. E. (1905), Iuvenalis Saturae , London

Kirk, G. S. ed. (1985), The Iliad: A Commentary vol. 1, Cambridge

Kordić, S. (1997), Serbo-Croatian , Munich

Korvacs, D. (2002), Euripides: vol. 5, Helen, Phoenician Women, Orestes , Cambridge, MA

Ladefoged, P. (1996), Elements of Acoustic Phonetics , Chicago

Lattimore, R. L. trans. (1951), The Iliad of Homer , Chicago

Leaf, W. (1900), The Iliad 2nd ed. vol. 1, London

Lennard, J. (2005), The Poetry Handbook , Oxford

Lord, A. B. (2000), The Singer of Tales 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA

Martin, R. P., ‘Epic as Genre’ in J. M. Foley ed. (2005), A Companion to Ancient Epic , 9-19, Oxford

Monro, D. B. (1891), A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect 2nd ed., Oxford

Munro D. B. & T. W. Allen eds. (1920), Homeri Opera 2 vols., Oxford

Murray, A. T. (1999, rev. Wyatt), Homer: Iliad vol. 1, Cambridge, MA

Pennington, A & P. Levi (1984), Marko the Prince: Serbo-Croat Heroic Songs , London

Pulleyn, S. ed. (2000), Homer Iliad I , Oxford

11/16

Randolph, C. B. (1910), ‘The Sign of Interrogation in Greek Minuscule Manuscripts’, Classical

Philology 5(3) (309-19)

Rijksbaron, A. (2007), Plato Ion Or: On the Iliad , Leiden van Thiel, H. (1996), Homeri Ilias , 3 vols., Hildesheim

West, M. L. (1967), ‘Epica’, Glotta 44 (135-48)

- (1973), Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique , Stuttgart

- (1998), Homeri Ilias 2 vols. , Stuttgart

- (2001), Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad , Munich

12/16

Appendices

A: Manuscript Images

Below appear images of the Venetus A manuscript accessible (at a higher quality if desired) on the Homer Multitext Project (http://www.homermultitext.org/).

1. Line 291 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the back (verso) of folio 17

2.1 Line 8 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 12

2.2 Line 123 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 14

2.3 Line 134 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the back (verso) of folio 14

2.4 Line 151 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 15

2.5 Line 202 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 16

2.6 Line 362 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 19

13/16

2.7 Line 365 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 19

2.8 Line 414 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 20

2.9 Line 540 Venetus A Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the back (verso) of folio 22

2.10 Line 552 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 23

3 Line 157 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 15

4.1 Line 203 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 16

4.2 Line 291 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the back (verso) of folio 17

5. Close up of line 157 Venetus A: Marcianus Graecus Z. 454 (= 822) - the front (recto) of folio 15

14/16

B: Instances of Juxtaposition in Serbo-Croat Heroic Song

Page references are to Pennington & Levi (1984).

p.8

and I will leave him in the white palace’

‘Then leave me Boshko Jugovich’

p.17

and carried away twenty heads?’

‘That is Banovich Strahin.’

p.17

and pushed and threw them into Sitnitsa?’

‘That is Serdja Zlopogledja.’

p.17

herding them into Sitnitsa water?’

‘That one is Boshko Jugovich.’

p.35

or you will not take your head from here’

‘By God,’ the vila said, ‘my brother,

Marko, Prince, brother in God, p.46 why did they make you so very angry?’

‘Never ask, Emperor, father in God.

15/16 p.56

‘Marko, are you somewhere in this life?’

‘Sultan, I am, but in an evil life.’ p.80

‘O Tsar, my lord, will you give me your leave to leap the three horses of the three knights?’

‘O my dear child, I give you my leave. p.81

‘O Tsar, my Lord, will you give me your leave and I will shoot that apple through the ring?’

‘O my dear son, I give you my leave.’ p.81

‘O Tsar, my lord, do you give me your leave to pick you out the young girl Roxana?’

‘O my dear child, I do give you my leave, p.92

‘The crown is mine,’ King Vukashin declared,

‘No, it is mine,’ said Ugljesha Overlord,

‘No, it is mine,’ said Gojko, the lord Duke,

16/16